High Court of Kerala6 July 2026

Sachu Sony v. Superintendent, Central Gst & Central Excise

For assessee

WP(C) NO. 19247 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where a dealer received a composite notice and order-in-original for multiple years under CGST/KGST, such composite proceedings were unsustainable as per settled law, so the impugned order, notice, and summary were quashed and authorities allowed to issue fresh year-wise notices, with benefit of Section 16(5) if returns filed by 30.11.2021 and limitation period suitably adjusted.

Where petitioner was denied ITC for certain months on limitation grounds though returns were furnished by 30.11.2021 and Section 16(5) benefit was claimed, order and related notices were quashed and respondents were to reconsider eligibility for ITC for each year, granting Section 16(5) benefit if timely filing is verified, excluding specified period for limitation computation

Provisions considered

Section 75 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 16, read with section 168A, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Calcutta High Court24 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal

Where tax, interest and penalty demands were raised via SCN and order uploaded only on portal without direct intimation and reply was filed but no personal hearing was afforded before passing ex parte order, principles of natural justice were breached, requiring the adjudication to be quashed and matter reconsidered after granting effective hearing

Delhi High Court22 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST

Where registered person was issued adverse order in Form DRC-07 without being given personal hearing, statutory mandate required hearing either on request or whenever adverse decision was contemplated, such order passed without personal hearing was unsustainable and was set aside with directions for fresh decision after affording effective personal hearing

Andhra Pradesh High Court21 Sept 2026

For assessee

Saptagiri Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Where registered taxpayer supplying works contract services to Government Departments was subjected to a single composite assessment order covering multiple years, such composite assessment was impermissible, so the impugned summary order was set aside and respondents could initiate fresh proceedings for each assessment year separately, with all consequential proceedings revoked

CGST S.75

Sachu Sony v. Superintendent, Central Gst & Central Excise

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Sachu Sony v. Superintendent, Central Gst & Central Excise

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal

Rohit VIJ v. Commissioner of GST

Saptagiri Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Read the full analysis